Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

If Nevada gubernatorial candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone gets his way, $25 will buy you the right to drive up to 90mph for a day. DiSimone estimates his "free limit plan" will raise $1 billion a year for Nevada. From the article: "First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder. After setting up an account, anyone in a hurry could dial in, and for $25 charged to a credit card, be free to speed for 24 hours."

I thought it might be less bad if the proposal stated that someone using a pass would be deemed at fault in any collision. So I used Google to try to find the details of this plan, but they all appeared to be copies of the Associated Press story linked from the summary.

There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn

So you would be in favor of making it illegal to pass on the right, just like on the Autobahn, in order to make highways safe at high speeds?

That's not such a bad idea. Right now it's permissible to drive slowly in the left lane because traffic can still get around you. If it were illegal to pass on the right, only then could you be impeding traffic. So "illegal to pass on the right" would keep slow drivers out of the fast lanes.

In many states, mine included(IL), its not legal at all to drive in the left lane, unless you are passing, or in congested traffic. If you are the only car in the left lane, and have the ability to switch to the right lane, YOU are the one breaking the law. Some states will even ticket you if you are going the speed limit, in the left lane.

I'm German, and I find 160 km/h (100 mph) a very decent cruising speed. Sometimes I go up to 200 km/h for short periods of time (5 to 10 minutes) where it's legal.

I've been driving around Pittsburgh for the past few days, and I learned driving in Iowa. All three are very distinct driving experiences, and while I think Iowa Highways couldn't support these speeds, their Freeways would; but in Pittsburgh, even 55 mph is often an unsafe speed because the roads are so chaotic, uneven, there's so much construction and hardly anyone ever uses their turn signals to show intent rather than stating the obvious.

People drive 90mph already on those roads anyway. Highway 5 in California has stretches that routinely flow-of-traffic at my car's electronically limited top speed.

The old "55 everywhere" limit was put in place 40 years ago when that hit the fuel efficiency curve of cars at the time. That is no longer true. Now we have a voting block of really old people who don't feel comfortable driving at the normal flow of traffic, and as such keep voting down speed increases. Sigh.

It'd be really sweet if the families of anyone killed by a legally speeding driver got the $25.

...except you're not speeding. If the government comes out and changes the speed limit in front of my house from 15 to 25, people going 25 are not speeding. If the government says you can go 90, it's not speeding.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with the government giving 'special' rights in exchange for money.

This also breaks down when you realise that most of these things are built for the lowest common denominator. For instance that sign we see on the side of our roads here which shows the upcoming corner and recommended speed, is for trucks, in my car I can safely go 10-15km/h faster around that corner when the road is wet and faster still.

But let's talk speed limits on a flat road for a moment. Sure the road may be engineered to go at a faster speed, and you or I may be perfectly capable of handling the road at or above 70mph, however does that suddenly mean that everyone is capable of going at 90, just because they spend $25? Heck I would say that about 1/4 of drivers around here aren't capable of handling the speed limit as signed. These are the type who do 50km/h in a 60 zone because they're just not comfortable with the upcoming corner, or the guys who consistently do 10km/h under the speed limit.

I fully agree that speed limits are somewhat arbitrary due to the over-engineering of roads, but grandpa driving his 1980s era Mitsubishi Colt is not. While he has his licence, or while the guy next to you is about to take that next corner while sending an sms, or mum is shouting at her kids in the back I fully welcome the extra buffer politicians have added to roads which were otherwise over engineered. Unfortunately the death toll shows that as it is there is something wrong (whether it be speeding, stupidity or incompetence), and being cut off while travelling 90km/h is much more managable then being cut off when doing 110km/h.

Native Germans driving in the US are probably bored to death on perfectly made freeways with a 55mph limit, suddenly understanding how people can actually, regularly, text on their phone while driving to work and survive until retirement.

Native USians driving the Autobahn would feel Shock and Awe while everyone around them would just do their daily commute, driving in their regular manner.

It's about regular vehicle safety inspections - and driver's experience and expectations. You can't suddenly remove all speed limits on the freeway, but increasing it by 5mph every 5 years will go a long way before any trouble comes up.

Probably agree.The first court cases would be interesting, anyway.Grieving family members vs. the state.The state having condoned behaviour which was deemed by experts and the police to be the primary factor in the death of the Ronson family, including their cute 4 year old Jenna(shown on news broadcasts with cute curls), their 7 year old son Simon (shown smiling on his bike) and the family dog.Can't you just SEE the PR disaster?

Even if the state would beat any charges, or charges wouldn't be filed, the state would still lose.A bill like this would inevitable become a huge liability for a state and would result in financial losses due to high income people moving out of state because of the state having become a less safe place to be. The cost of supporting crippled survivors, family members and rebuilding costs after powerful cars slam into nearby objects at ludicrous speeds would also make the profit somewhat smaller.

The German driver thing illustrates that it might be safe for German drivers to speed on American highways. Sadly, many Americans have adopted the view that flaunting the least possible precaution demonstrates maximal independence from the nanny state. Somehow the Germans manage to maintain masculinity while wearing proper safety equipment. If America had a sane culture of safety, Palin's approval rating would be -300%

Have you ever used a chainsaw without wearing a face shield and Kevlar pants? No soup for you.

Finally, I have to wonder what the medical response time in Utah looks like compared to any Hamburg in Germany. Half the time I bet the salt truck gets there sooner than the ambulance. Perhaps in Utah that's considered acceptable.

A major point of legally carrying a gun around in public is so that it can be seen and doesn't have to be used. What good is concealed carry to anybody apart from undercover police (who have other permits to cover it anyway) and organised crime? The general public carrying a hidden gun may get some sort of James Bond vibe but they really have no functional reason to hide their weapon.

Many people feel threatened if they see a gun. I live in a open carry legal state but you need a permit for concealed carry. Whenever someone goes out with a gun on their hip in accordance with state law, inevitably the police get called because someone felt threatened. Concealed carry avoids that, it also means criminals have to think twice, they never know who is carrying a gun. If everyone had to open carry they would always know who is carrying a gun and know to either not take action then or to take out the man with the gun first. Further organized crime types typically already have a criminal record. This is the purpose of the background check for concealed carry. Many states you don't even need a criminal record to be denied a permit. If they go into your background and suspect you are up to no good, no permit for you.

This is something I always notice. I am comfortable driving faster than almost everyone else on the roads. However, when the conditions get worse I back off.

A few weeks ago I was traveling home from a trip. Interstate speed limits in my state are 65 and I was probably hovering between 80 and 85. I was passing a lot of people. Then it started raining. I said to myself "oh, light rain just starting after a dry spell, loose dirt on the road, slow down". So I slowed down to 75. Then it got heavier. I said to mself "oh, can't see very well, slow down". So I slowed down to 70, 65, 60, people start passing me, 55. I'm cruising along at 55 which I feel is pushing the safe speed and people go zipping past me. I pull off to pick up my dog from the dog sitter. Get back on half an hour later. I saw 3-4 accidents from idiots who were afraid to travel 80 in clear skys with dry roads, but didn't flinch at all from going 65 when they couldn't see and the water was an non-trivially deep.

People don't drive for the conditions. Either that or I way overcompensate for the conditions.

I've got to move to Germany. I'm in the US and signal everywhere, even when I turn into my driveway at the end of the dead end street.

I hear you. I use to speed coming down from PA to DC and back. I had fewer bad situations speeding than I did staying near the speed limit and driving between wolf packs (like they "teach" you here in the US). Too bad I got ticketed a few times, everytime though being at night and when I was alone. Apparently, going 95 when it's 2am is horrible, but going 90 in a pack of 15 drivers near bumper to bumper at 5.5pm isn't.

The best was these massive lanes outside of I think Landover, Maryland. I was going to a town there several times a month, and the highway east of DC apparently is that wide to handle Washington Redskins football traffic (a Sunday or Monday only thing). During the day, there was little to no traffic. It was the strangest feeling going 90mph, seeing 3 cars pass you, join the widely spaced group, find out they're going 110mph, look in your rear view, and see a cop pull in behind you...but with no lights. So I pulled over to one of the middle lanes, the police officer passes me, and the 3 front cars continue on their way ignoring the police car, and the police takes one of the upcoming exits, without pulling anyone over.

In the US, it's common practice to use the left lane to block the speeding drivers. If you flash lights, they don't see it or don't care. If you honk politely, usually a hand comes out, either to flip or wave you off or to point at the speed limit sign. I believe the latter is considered righteous indignation, and it's rather common. People write into magazines lambasting the horrors of speeding.

"Americans would have to learn these things"

Not happening. I live in a transition area between rural-suburb and small city, and people don't signal for anything. Even those that do signal, don't often signal early enough--you often know they are turning before the signal comes on. My favorite are those that activate their signal DURING the turn. It's gotten so bad, people also don't even care when people do signal--I've almost been rear ended on this one dangerous spot I frequent (going downhill, there are 2 side streets on the left, and the oncoming traffic forms a Y with your lane and the second side street, with no shoulder on the right at all) despite putting the signal light on prior to the 1st side street and starting to brake a little earlier than needed. People just don't care. Hell, one time someone honked at me in annoyance because he had almost slammed into me. First thing I did was pull over at the next convenient stop and check if my turn signal worked. It was.

Cars stored even on private land could easily be classified as toxic waste storage and therefore you get the "shared resource" angle. Cars are a pretty bad example of individual vs. collective rights (or good depending on your perspective). We allow a huge amount more danger to the public from cars than from almost anything else. Cars are seen as an individual liberty, aid to mobility, right to drive etc. There is almost no acknowledgement of the actual public networks that cars run on - gasoline, electrical, roads, sidewalks, public or semi-public insurance, special classification of laws "traffic" to keep the deaths less, total ownership of right of way etc etc.

Well, that court case sort of hamstrings the entire anti-gun movement since it sets a precedent that its not the duty of the police to protect us. Im not sure how we are supposed to protect our life and property if we can't arm ourselves responsibly.

It will be obvious to anyone who has driven with a German driver in Germany that the reason why they can drive fast and not die. The vast majority of German drivers are highly skilled, highly respectful of the laws AND are motivated to get from A to B as quickly as possible in a purposeful manner. They also fastidiously maintain their cars which are generally very well built to begin with. American drivers by comparison are unskilled, disrespectful of basic laws (like stop signs), distracted and they drive inferior automobiles in worse condition.
I'd rather see an advanced driving test instituted. You pay $50 to take it and if you pass you can drive as fast as you want. Your car gets inspected once a year. Done. Privileges for those who are skilled and responsible.

I saw a documentary on TV.They have a truck which drives up to the white posts on the side of the road and washes them with big brushes like a car wash to keep them clean and visible.Now *that's* attention to detail.

. I saw 3-4 accidents from idiots who were afraid to travel 80 in clear skys with dry roads, but didn't flinch at all from going 65 when they couldn't see and the water was an non-trivially deep

The common "reasoning" is going too slow will cause someone to rear-end them. The craziest thing is people going the speed limit in fog so thick they can't see anything. There have been massive 200 car pile ups in fog, as though this is what would happen if lemmings drove cars.

My opinion on raising the speed limit to 90 - don't make it a purchasable option, make it available for free, because otherwise one day someone will really want to do it and have no experience driving at that speed (although most drivers probably go that fast quite often already). Also, being legal at 90 just means the speeding ticket for 110 or 120 is that much less, so this is the zone where people will really get into trouble if they're not ready for it. At the higher speeds, things happen much sooner and stopping distances are much longer.

Furthermore, if a lot of people do buy into it, enforcement won't bother stopping people for such high speeds anyways. Who wants to do a traffic stop standing out there with cars going by at 120? Not to mention, someone already in a hurry will not appreciate buying a permit and then having to show it when stopped for going over the posted limit. And someone else not in a hurry isn't going to like another dude trying to get his money's worth even if it means tailgating, passing into oncoming traffic, and other unsafe practices to get to open road.

All this is, is a way to earn more government revenue. Raise ths speed limit, raise taxes on gas, increase the frequency of car inspections - that would be a safer way, though it costs a lot more to build high speed roads.

And who will decide that imposing speed limits are in fact a "reasonable state regulation"? A single judge? A jury of twelve?

Your State of Texas decided it is reasonable to allow all healthy adults free gun ownership and severely restrict highway speeds. Texans unite in claiming gun ownership is a right that the state has no grounds in restricting except for e.g. at special districts - and that civilians driving 210km/h or 140mph on a public highway is criminally insane.

My Federal Republic of Germany decided, it is reasonable to allow all healthy adults (with safety-inspected cars) free speeds on highway and severely restrict gun ownership. Germans unite in claiming free driving on an empty highway is a right the state has no grounds in restricting except e.g. on special sections - and that carrying a loaded firearm on a public street is criminally insane.

So either we're both insane or there's something to both points of view. As both claim it is done because of reason and individual freedom, I doubt there's an easy and universal answer to it.